Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Assignment #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: Jayme Pia

EDRL 442: Teaching Literacy 1 Nevada State College - Fall 2013 Instructor: Karen Powell

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis


A. Summary of the Assignment

Submitted By: Jayme Pia

To accurately place students into groups utilizing the AIMSweb assessments. Explanation of Assessments 1. The Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measure assesses a student's ability to segment words. The students are provided with two to three letter words. The administrator will show the student individually the word and provide directions. Directions are Im going to show you a word, and say it aloud; once Ive said it you will say the word saying each sound in the word. Provide an example and then begin. Each correct word is one point each, complete as many as the student can within one minute. The target score is 35. 2. The Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) assesses the students ability to blend letters into words. The administrator will provide a list of nonsense words individually to determine if the student is still accurately able to identify the letters sound. The score will be based off the number of non-real words the student is able to say per minute. It is considered an error if the students use a substitution, omission, mispronunciation, or struggles for a letter for more than 3 seconds. The target score is 27. 3. The Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) assessment asks individual students to name as many upper and lower case letters as they can in one minute. Administrators will use a chart with letters to provide to students. For the letters identified correctly students will receive a point. The score is the number of letters named correctly in 1 minute. The target score is 40. 4. The Letter Sound Fluency (LSF) For Letter Sound, the student must individually identify as many lower-case letter sounds as possible in 1 minute. To administer the test the administrator will provide the student with a chart of letters. The student will be asked to say the sound of each letter. The administrator will tally the sounds that were said correctly as well as tally the errors. The target score is 25. B. Factual Information: Test Results In analyzing Miss Keetows class I calculated the class average for the 4 assessments, as well as how many students were at, above, or below target for each assessment. Miss Keetow has 20 students in her classroom. Her students average
EDRL 442 - Fall 2013 Assignment #2 Page 2

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: Jayme Pia

assessment scores were higher than the target score in all four categories. The difference between the class average and the target scores were roughly the same for each assessment. Although, the Letter Naming Fluency assessment had average scores much closer to the target score. In a way this surprised me, as I would have thought this one to have the highest average. The average score for LNF is 48.1 vs. the target score of 40. However the LNF assessment also had a higher target score in general. By looking at the numbers of Miss Keetows class, one could say the class consists of above average students. There are very few that have less than average scores. After analyzing the data from the class as a whole, I assessed their individual total scores from all four assessments. There was only one student, Chandra Lear who consistently did not make the target score. All other students had combined scores that went beyond the combined target scores. The highest combined score in the class was 263, 136 points above target. The lowest combined score in the class was 78, 49 below target. This student will need additional reading support. With such a wide array of students, it could be difficult to teach reading as a class, thus proving the need to be able to break students into smaller groups. C. Interpretation of Data In order to determine the groups I would select for Miss Keetows class I am utilizing the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) assessment. The Phoneme Segmentation Fluency assessment provides baseline knowledge of being able to segment words. As the reading becomes increasingly difficult, it becomes of value to see how a word can be segmented in order to recognize the sounds in other more difficult words. The Students average score for the PSF assessment came in at 53.45, with the target being 35. Based off of the students scores, I will split the class into four groups based off their scores. The groups will consist of 5 students each and will have the following titles; near target, (2) above target, and high above target. The first group, near target, consists of below and right around the target score, with scores ranging from 10-44. The next two groups have scores that range closely together, therefore have the same name of above target. The above target group consists of scored ranging from 44-63. The third group, high above target, has scores that are near to each other but are exceptionally high and range from 69-72.
EDRL 442 - Fall 2013 Assignment #2 Page 3

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: Jayme Pia

Near Target
Tate Urchips

Above Target
Ann Chovie Robin Banks

Above Target
Rick OShae Harrison Fire Pete Moss Paige Turner Jay Walker

High above Target


Justin Tyme Jack Potts Carrie Oakie Ella Mentry Scott Free

Chandra Lear Rhoda Booke Candi Barr Barbie Dahl Matt Tress Anna Mull Luke Warm I chose to group the students based off their closeness in scores. My reason for doing this is because the time spent in reading groups are limited. That time is very valuable and if the group has varying scores, more time will be spent on trying to get them on the same page versus having effective instructional time. After separating the students into small groups the teacher can further assess the individual needs of that group. This allows the teacher to provide more individualized instruction than possible as an entire class. D. Additional Information Placing students into groups based off only an assessment is somewhat of a challenge. Not having any background information puts me at a disadvantage of not knowing the student and their background. For example there were a couple particularly low scoring students whom I have no idea is they are ELL learners, or SPED, or Speech students. It would help to know if they will be receiving instruction from outside sources or only Miss Keetow. If the students I currently have grouped are any of the above circumstance, my group selections may prove to be ineffective. E. Reflection This was definitely an interesting process for me, to have to solely base the reading groups off of statistics and not be able to take into account the students back ground. I think its hard to say if it is the most effective way, never the less I was able to group the students based off their scores, placing them in groups where other
EDRL 442 - Fall 2013 Assignment #2 Page 4

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: Jayme Pia

students scored relatively close to each other. I enjoyed analyzing the students data because in certain circumstances, it was interesting to see the variations there could be in scores with only one student. The entire process is interesting, because as a child you tend to think the teacher just places you into a group, not knowing the basis for their decision and to now as an adult see the entire process, it is truly enlightening.

EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Assignment #2

Page 5

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen